[John Kavanaugh]

What the hell does a circumference have to do with distance on a golf course.  Since this has become a pissing match let me say that one of my favorite stats is when a guy mentions the circumference of his cock.  It always makes me laugh.

[Brent Hutto]

Yardage, pacing off markers, range finders are not part of my game neither is getting distance info from a caddie, so I need to eyeball the distance to the hole because it is ALL PART OF MY GAME

I hope you enjoy your game as I do mine, from your language it does not look that you do - but that’s your choice, be miserable and dependent on artificial aids (on a Golf  Course).

Melvyn, perhaps you didn't finish reading my statement. Or at least you didn't finish the quote:

No, the logical conclusion is that eyeballing the distance to the hole is not a part of the game. It may have been a part of the game before anyone thought to start pacing off yardages and marking them down in a little book. But as soon as that method was invented it became the normative approach adopted nigh universally by the best players in the game. And when it became the normal way the game was played and yet the Rules of Golf remained silent, anyone believing that playing from yardages is cheating lost the argument.

Guessing distances may be part of your game. And congratulations if you have great skill at it...

and so forth. I have absolutely no problem with someone preferring to guess the distance to the hole. I only have a problem with them trying to convince me that doing so is somehow superior to playing with known distances when it manifestly is not from any ethical or practical standpoint. It's just a preference.

It may not have been the first time I set foot on a golf course or even the second but yes, very early on I distinctly remember asking the fellow I was playing with "How far is it to the green?" and then "And which club should I use to get there?". Of course the answers didn't much matter at that point, I probably topped the ball four more times before arriving. But from those first few afternoons back in 1994 it seemed clear to me that the various clubs go various distances and after a while you ought to know how they match up with the shot at hand.

[Kirk Gill]

Why is it so  hard for the pro-rangefinder contingent to understand that for some, the ability to make distance judgements is one of the many skills that golf tests? That uncertainty about distance, and the ability to make decisions based on one's own perception is part of what makes up the challenge of the game? And that if you aren't good at it than a price will be paid on the scorecard, just like if you're a weak putter or can't seem to hit the long irons.

Obviously some of the anti-RF folks aren't willing to concede that there are some whose joy in golf comes from a place where the rangefinder fits in perfectly. To quote myself from many pages ago - some are in love with the science of golf, and for them knowing EXACTLY how far they have to hit it is just part of their fun in being able to EXECUTE a shot of precisely that distance. For others, figuring out how far to hit it and then executing a shot based on that judgement is more enjoyable.

I get the notion that we all can't agree on the issue, but what stuns me is the inablility of some to even see what attraction there is in playing the game in a way differently than their own, and the desire amongst people to chastise or demean those who see things differently.

That said I think that long putters are crap.

[Jeff Fortson]

I used to be against range finders as I felt eye-balling your yardage was more pure to the game (which in a way it still is).  However, I have not found that range finders better anyone's score or deter from the enjoyment of one's play.  I have not met one person that started using a range finder and then thought the game was no longer fun.  If you don't like them, you can simply not use them.  

In running the Golden State Tour I have seen times decrease significantly since allowing players to use range finders.  With the realities of mini-tour golf (i.e. playing with public players on the course, competitors not having the money to hire caddies, etc.) we decided to let players use them and it's taken at least 20 minutes off the average round of golf for us.  

While I think range finders are a step out of and away from tradition, I don't think they cheapen the game or make it less enjoyable, nor do I think it makes the game easier.  I see no real harm in their inclusion in golf.


Jeff F.

P.S.  I know this post will make Dan King look like the Native American that sheds a tear when a person litters.  Sorry Dan!  
 

[JWinick]

Thank you, Jeff, for offering evidence that range finders save time.  20 minutes a round is a huge difference.  Just think, that gives us all another 20 minutes to argue about this topic after our round!

[C. Squier]

Brent: didn't you see those 2008 Chinese dudes form a perfect circle Friday night?

Trig? 

Try geometry. 

With math like that, it's little wonder America will be a Chinese colony by the time my grandchildren get married - assuming the Chinese allow them to. 

Shivas, everything's not always black or white.  

The Pythagorean Theorem is both Geometry and Trigonometry.  

CPS

Measuring the circumference of a circle is geometry.  Why even go to trig?  There's a reason they teach geometry first...

.....and why they teach trig second.  To teach us that knowing the circumference of a circle has nothing to do with yardage on a golf course. 

[Brent Hutto]

Why is it so  hard for the pro-rangefinder contingent to understand that for some, the ability to make distance judgements is one of the many skills that golf tests? That uncertainty about distance, and the ability to make decisions based on one's own perception is part of what makes up the challenge of the game? And that if you aren't good at it than a price will be paid on the scorecard, just like if you're a weak putter or can't seem to hit the long irons.

Because unlike putting or hitting shots I can find nothing in the Rules of Golf to support your contention and I see that the guys who play golf every day of their life and earn a living at it almost to a man use sources beyond their eyeballs to determine the distance of every shot. Is it not clear why I give the normative definition of "golf" greater weight than the personal predilections of a relative handful of guys who consider themselves purists?

Obviously some of the anti-RF folks aren't willing to concede that there are some whose joy in golf comes from a place where the rangefinder fits in perfectly. To quote myself from many pages ago - some are in love with the science of golf, and for them knowing EXACTLY how far they have to hit it is just part of their fun in being able to EXECUTE a shot of precisely that distance. For others, figuring out how far to hit it and then executing a shot based on that judgement is more enjoyable.

Perhaps you weren't including me in "some" but I certainly concede that there are some who find joy in guessing distances when they play. It just so happens that some of the people I most enjoy playing with fit into that category. Which is why it pains me so to hear them trumpeting my supposed disrespect for the game and my fellow players every time I walk over to a sprinkler head or pull out a rangefinder. If it were just random nobodies blathering I wouldn't care enough to point out how bloody-minded they are being.

And hey, it ain't like I'm going to run over to Sean Arble the next time I see him about to hit a shot with an 8-iron and yell "Hey buddy, did you know you're exactly 162 yards from the flag?".

[Kalen Braley]

Bill, Bill, Bill...

What are we going to do with you, always the rabble rouser.  I've worked in the construction biz and when your rough framing, 1/4 inch is almost always good enough damn it!!! That being said, I would never even make an attempt at finish work that does require much more refined specifications.  A man has to know his limitations!! 

As a general contractor, I know enough to buy a laser to check the layout of all framing operations.  It's okay for business but for golf.    go figure.

Sorry, I thought you said 6 3/4" tolerance rather than 1/16" tolerance.  Big difference.

And yes, I do love to rouse the rabble. 

Sorry Bill,

I can now see the confusion.  Meant to say something like said framer demanding a 6 and 13/16 inch cut when 6 and 3/4 is good enough. 

But damn it, when will you learn to know what I meant, not what I said!   

As you are in the biz, little side story:  My first boss sure got pissed when I framed a long wall and forgot to put in on 36 inch centers for the drywallers...oops!!

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
I have seen them produce some wildly "off" results - particularly the skycaddie.

If these gadgets had a built in feature where on occasion they were intentionally off, then I would not have the same problem with them. I'd like them to 10 percent of the time give a random wrong number. Some times it would be so obviously off, that the user would just say screw it and rely on another means (probably a second device -- it would be nice if certain days all gadgets would miscalculate the same measurement, so there would be no benefit to remeasuring or having multiple gadgets) Other times it might just be off by a fraction. Just enough to reduce the confidence in the device. Perhaps the reflectors on the pin could be set to occasionally cause incorrect measurements.

I might still dislike them because they make slower golfers slower, but so does everything else.

JWinick writes:
Not sure why you keep going on an anti-American rant.   The American way is about using increasing productivity.    You dismiss people as being lazy because they wish to use a legal device.

It isn't an anti-American rant, it is an anti-what-America-has-done-to-golf rant. It is the same argument C.B. Macdonald used 100 years ago.

America is about removing thought from games, making it only a physical test.

I dismiss people for wanting to use a device as a shortcut to actually doing the work. The work is important and shouldn't be so easily dismissed. So, yeah, I guess I do dismiss people as being lazy because they wish to use a legal device. I understand the motivation, but it isn't in the best interests of golf, and therefore I blame the custodians of golf, not the lazy golfers who use the devices.

Cheers,
Dan King

Some people are always critical of vague statements. I tend rather to be critical of precise statements; they are the only ones which can correctly be labeled 'wrong'.
 --Raymond Smullyan

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom Huckaby writes:
I have seen them produce some wildly "off" results - particularly the skycaddie.

If these gadgets had a built in feature where on occasion they were intentionally off, then I would not have the same problem with them. I'd like them to 10 percent of the time give a random wrong number. Some times it would be so obviously off, that the user would just say screw it and rely on another means (probably a second device -- it would be nice if certain days all gadgets would miscalculate the same measurement, so there would be no benefit to remeasuring or having multiple gadgets) Other times it might just be off by a fraction. Just enough to reduce the confidence in the device. Perhaps the reflectors on the pin could be set to occasionally cause incorrect measurements.

I might still dislike them because they make slower golfers slower, but so does everything else.

Dan - not that this will ever happen since you don't play any more, but I really do think your take (at least on the "doubt"issue) might change if you saw these in action.  It's really not that far off from what you say - especially sky caddies.

As for them making golfers slower, they might for some.  But read Jeff's post.  They surely don't for others.  I honestly do believe they make the game faster on the whole; though I do not expect you to agree.

TH

[C. Squier]

Brent: didn't you see those 2008 Chinese dudes form a perfect circle Friday night?

Trig? 

Try geometry. 

With math like that, it's little wonder America will be a Chinese colony by the time my grandchildren get married - assuming the Chinese allow them to. 

Shivas, everything's not always black or white.  

The Pythagorean Theorem is both Geometry and Trigonometry.  

CPS

Measuring the circumference of a circle is geometry.  Why even go to trig?  There's a reason they teach geometry first...

.....and why they teach trig second.  To teach us that knowing the circumference of a circle has nothing to do with yardage on a golf course. 

Show me just one guy who has ever used the pythagorean theorum to calculate distance when they're adjascent to a marker, but far off in the rough. They calculate a circle (geometry) and then figure out how much farther than that they are...

A person can guess with a circle, but calculate with a triangle.  You can't blast Americans for not knowing math, then chastise me for knowing basic trig all on the same page. 

CPS

[Jeff Fortson]

Thank you, Jeff, for offering evidence that range finders save time.  20 minutes a round is a huge difference.  Just think, that gives us all another 20 minutes to argue about this topic after our round!

Mini-tour players have nowhere to go but down.  They literally couldn't be any slower if they tried.  I'll bet they were pacing both up from a marker and down from a forward marker before rangefinders.   I've seen it too many times.

That's funny...  I have multiple players that have graduated to the Canadian, Asian, Nationwide, and PGA tours.  If they have nowhere to go but down, then my tour must be the greatest in the world!


Jeff F.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill, Bill, Bill...

What are we going to do with you, always the rabble rouser.  I've worked in the construction biz and when your rough framing, 1/4 inch is almost always good enough damn it!!! That being said, I would never even make an attempt at finish work that does require much more refined specifications.  A man has to know his limitations!! 

As a general contractor, I know enough to buy a laser to check the layout of all framing operations.  It's okay for business but for golf.    go figure.

Sorry, I thought you said 6 3/4" tolerance rather than 1/16" tolerance.  Big difference.

And yes, I do love to rouse the rabble. 

Sorry Bill,

I can now see the confusion.  Meant to say something like said framer demanding a 6 and 13/16 inch cut when 6 and 3/4 is good enough. 

But damn it, when will you learn to know what I meant, not what I said!   

As you are in the biz, little side story:  My first boss sure got pissed when I framed a long wall and forgot to put in on 36 inch centers for the drywallers...oops!!

That error was by several magnitudes, as everybody knows wall framing (if 2x4 studs) has to be on 16" centers.  You stud! 

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
Dan - not that this will ever happen since you don't play any more, but I really do think your take (at least on the "doubt"issue) might change if you saw these in action.  It's really not that far off from what you say - especially sky caddies.

Most of my posts on this thread worked under the assumption these devices had some degree of accuracy. If they truly are as inaccurate as Tom makes it sound, then my argument dies. Way to go Bushnell. Keep up the crappy job.

While I am really concerned with the Americanization of golf, I have confidence in the Americanization in technology. If they are inaccurate as you claim, then I'm fairly sure they will improved on quickly. I don't think anyone will listen to me in the future if I start complaining these accepted devices are becoming too accurate.

As for them making golfers slower, they might for some.  But read Jeff's post.  They surely don't for others.  I honestly do believe they make the game faster on the whole; though I do not expect you to agree.

My obvious concern is not the mini-tour player, or even the PGA Tour® (other than the American obsession to play just like the pros) but the group ahead of me on the golf course. Give them another gadget to fiddle with and they will slow down. Give them something inaccurate, and they will take 20 measurements so they can figure out which is reliable. If they are unreliable as you say, I'm a little shocked the game hasn't gotten even slower.

Cheers,
Dan King

It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.
 --Albert Einstein

[Patrick_Mucci]

Thank you, Jeff, for offering evidence that range finders save time.  20 minutes a round is a huge difference.  Just think, that gives us all another 20 minutes to argue about this topic after our round!

JWinick,

I think Jeff's reference has to be taken in context.  Jeff's refering to Pros who are notoriously slow when competing in a tournament.

If I walk and play in 2:30 to 2:45 to 3:00, I'd like to know how a rangefinder is going to cut 20 minutes off my round.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom Huckaby writes:
Dan - not that this will ever happen since you don't play any more, but I really do think your take (at least on the "doubt"issue) might change if you saw these in action.  It's really not that far off from what you say - especially sky caddies.

Most of my posts on this thread worked under the assumption these devices had some degree of accuracy. If they truly are as inaccurate as Tom makes it sound, then my argument dies. Way to go Bushnell. Keep up the crappy job.

While I am really concerned with the Americanization of golf, I have confidence in the Americanization in technology. If they are inaccurate as you claim, then I'm fairly sure they will improved on quickly. I don't think anyone will listen to me in the future if I start complaining these accepted devices are becoming too accurate.

As for them making golfers slower, they might for some.  But read Jeff's post.  They surely don't for others.  I honestly do believe they make the game faster on the whole; though I do not expect you to agree.

My obvious concern is not the mini-tour player, or even the PGA Tour® (other than the American obsession to play just like the pros) but the group ahead of me on the golf course. Give them another gadget to fiddle with and they will slow down. Give them something inaccurate, and they will take 20 measurements so they can figure out which is reliable. If they are unreliable as you say, I'm a little shocked the game hasn't gotten even slower.

Cheers,
Dan King

It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.
 --Albert Einstein

1.  The point is not that they are wildly inaccurate; I have seen very off readings from skycaddies, and like I say bushnells do require a certain skill so user error can give an incorrect reading - the point is that for these reasons they are not perfect; and once one gets or hears about one "wrong" reading, well... it's hard to say all doubt is removed.  Therefore if you do base this primarily on doubt being removed, then yes your arguments do fail.

2.  Re speeding or slowing the game, it's gonna depend on WHO is in that group in front of you - when you decide to play, that is.    As has been said many times, some will go slower, some will go faster.  I do truly believe that most users of these things are those obsessed with distance (more or less, no offense Brett) and thus without them, they would painstakingly pace off yardages... as Jeff illustrates re the mini-tour pros.  Thus my belief is that since it clearly does make the game go faster for these people, and they are the majority of users, then overall the game goes faster.  But yes, you could get stuck behind a guy or gal who just likes to play with the thing.  That would be bad luck.

Bottom line is I have no dog in this fight any more.  I have gleaned some new things from this 11th go-round.  It just did seem worthwhile to me to clarify some arguments, that's all.

TH

[John Burzynski]

Brent: didn't you see those 2008 Chinese dudes form a perfect circle Friday night?

Trig? 

Try geometry. 

With math like that, it's little wonder America will be a Chinese colony by the time my grandchildren get married - assuming the Chinese allow them to. 

Shivas, everything's not always black or white.  

The Pythagorean Theorem is both Geometry and Trigonometry.  

CPS

Measuring the circumference of a circle is geometry.  Why even go to trig?  There's a reason they teach geometry first...

.....and why they teach trig second.  To teach us that knowing the circumference of a circle has nothing to do with yardage on a golf course. 

Show me just one guy who has ever used the pythagorean theorum to calculate distance when they're adjascent to a marker, but far off in the rough. They calculate a circle (geometry) and then figure out how much farther than that they are...

A person can guess with a circle, but calculate with a triangle.  You can't blast Americans for not knowing math, then chastise me for knowing basic trig all on the same page. 

CPS

Cue that Phil Mickelson commerical with all of the math formulas and such floating around the golf course.  I think it is a BP commerical for learning math?

[Jeff Fortson]

Thank you, Jeff, for offering evidence that range finders save time.  20 minutes a round is a huge difference.  Just think, that gives us all another 20 minutes to argue about this topic after our round!

JWinick,

I think Jeff's reference has to be taken in context.  Jeff's refering to Pros who are notoriously slow when competing in a tournament.

If I walk and play in 2:30 to 2:45 to 3:00, I'd like to know how a rangefinder is going to cut 20 minutes off my round.

Point taken.  I don't think it will speed up the average golfer that much, if at all.  I don't think they should be promoted as making the game faster.  Maybe, "making getting your yardage more convenient" is fair.  

Patrick,

Do you think you could walk Bethpage Red in 2:45 in the afternoon on any given Saturday?  Fortunately, you play at some nice clubs and there aren't as many crowds with better golfers playing in 10-20 minute intervals.  Most public golf courses run on 7-8 minute intervals between times which does more to jam up a course than anything else.  Put weekend warriors/I play once a year-guy/my wife and I are on vacation guys/bachelor party guys/I just got done watching the Masters and decided to pick this game up guy out in 8 minute times with no starter times and you have a recipe for disaster that couldn't be fixed by anything other than fines for finishing in over 4 hours.  I think people should be fined, if monitored, should they hold up an entire course.


Jeff F.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Thank you, Jeff, for offering evidence that range finders save time.  20 minutes a round is a huge difference.  Just think, that gives us all another 20 minutes to argue about this topic after our round!

JWinick,

I think Jeff's reference has to be taken in context.  Jeff's refering to Pros who are notoriously slow when competing in a tournament.

If I walk and play in 2:30 to 2:45 to 3:00, I'd like to know how a rangefinder is going to cut 20 minutes off my round.

Point taken.  I don't think it will speed up the average golfer that much, if at all.  I don't think they should be promoted as making the game faster.  Maybe, "making getting your yardage more convenient" is fair.  

Patrick,

Do you think you could walk Bethpage Red in 2:45 in the afternoon on any given Saturday?  

Your question introduces additional elements.

If I was the first one to tee off ?   YES
If I was in the midst of the pack, NO.

Pace of play has been allowed to come to a snail's crawl by club and tournament officials.

There's a simple solution.

Fix the time of a round to X hours.
Clock golfers as they leave the 1st tee.
Clock them as they leave the 18th green.

If they're more than 10 minutes behind the group in front, and/or take more than X hours, they aren't permitted to play again and must forfeit a prepaid slow play assessment.

That way there's no micro management.

Let's say that the first 10 groups play in 3 hours and that the 11th group plays in 3:30.  Groups 12 and beyond can never reduce their time of play to less than 3:30.  Thus group # 11 has ruined pace of play for everyone who followed them, and as such, they should be heavily penalized.

If club's adopted and enforced this system, slow play would be reduced and in time eliminated.

Fortunately, you play at some nice clubs and there aren't as many crowds with better golfers playing in 10-20 minute intervals.  Most public golf courses run on 7-8 minute intervals between times which does more to jam up a course than anything else.  Put weekend warriors/I play once a year-guy/my wife and I are on vacation guys/bachelor party guys/I just got done watching the Masters and decided to pick this game up guy out in 8 minute times with no starter times and you have a recipe for disaster that couldn't be fixed by anything other than fines for finishing in over 4 hours.  


I'd agree.
A study I saw indicated that 10 minute intervals were optimal in getting the groups around the golf course.  7 minute intervals aren't the solution, they just pack more golfers on the same field of play.

I think people should be fined, if monitored, should they hold up an entire course.

I definitely agree.
See my proposal above.

[SL_Solow]

Pat;  Sunset Valley (a Highland Park Il. muni) has had a program almost identical to the one you posted in effect for about 20 years.  It has worked beautifully with play on weekends in the 4 hour and less range.  They added one significant feature.  There are 1 or 2 unannounced checkpoints on the course.  Previously, when the only measure was at the end of the round, stragglers would run, fail to putt out etc on the last couple of holes to close the gap thus forcing those behind to do the same.  The "random" checks put an end to the "Silky Sullivan" finish.  The penalties are also a little different (warnings for the first offense and various other penalties including moving a starting time to later in the day culminating in loss of playing privileges).

[JWinick]

If it speeded up play in your example, there is no reason it wouldn't speed up play among weaker players.   Is a player who fails to use a range finder a slow player?  Not at all.  I don't doubt that Patrick can play a round in under 3 hours.   

But, for the player who needs to know his distance, banning a range finder just slows him down, which slows the round down.   No one is suggesting everyone must use a range finder, but if someone needs this information, it should be permitted.

Thank you, Jeff, for offering evidence that range finders save time.  20 minutes a round is a huge difference.  Just think, that gives us all another 20 minutes to argue about this topic after our round!

JWinick,

I think Jeff's reference has to be taken in context.  Jeff's refering to Pros who are notoriously slow when competing in a tournament.

If I walk and play in 2:30 to 2:45 to 3:00, I'd like to know how a rangefinder is going to cut 20 minutes off my round.

Point taken.  I don't think it will speed up the average golfer that much, if at all.  I don't think they should be promoted as making the game faster.  Maybe, "making getting your yardage more convenient" is fair.  

Patrick,

Do you think you could walk Bethpage Red in 2:45 in the afternoon on any given Saturday?  Fortunately, you play at some nice clubs and there aren't as many crowds with better golfers playing in 10-20 minute intervals.  Most public golf courses run on 7-8 minute intervals between times which does more to jam up a course than anything else.  Put weekend warriors/I play once a year-guy/my wife and I are on vacation guys/bachelor party guys/I just got done watching the Masters and decided to pick this game up guy out in 8 minute times with no starter times and you have a recipe for disaster that couldn't be fixed by anything other than fines for finishing in over 4 hours.  I think people should be fined, if monitored, should they hold up an entire course.


Jeff F.

[John Kavanaugh]

Shivas,

The 3,4,5 triangle is used extensively to calculate distances on a golf course.  I would believe this to be more common than the imaginary rope method.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Jon

I was referring to Brent appearing to be miserable, no one else and it was based upon him having to swear.
I am not stopping you – show me the comment which states that I am trying to stop you. – I just said that you don’t need to use them – please re-read all my comments because you have missed the point completely.

Brent

I did reads you comments just could not be bothered copying it all.


All you guys seem to want to know yardage, yet how many of you are that accurate that you can hit that spot time after time - I keep asking that question and no one answers, so what is the point of knowing distance if you can’t hit it even if you know to the nearest inch. There are just so many variable to be considered, but if you need your little aid and its legal play it, but you will never see me playing with guys that that feel the need for distance information.   

Why can’t you pro artificial aids, users of yardage book /marker and pacers just understand – that’s not my game. I have the inward strength to play as I was taught and how my father before me was taught – you play with your toys, your aids – they are legal, but I feel sorry that you don’t have the ability to rely upon your inner strength to judge for yourselves.

I will say this, I love watching players with their toys, books and the guys that pace distances, then screw up the shot completely. My friends and I have seen some wonderful moments that have brought tears to our eyes. 

But the real problem, the fundamental problem as mentioned by others is that distance/yardage knowledge has taken over the game – the only person to actually suffering in real terms are these poor guys that feel they need to use them in the first place. As for speeding up the game – I don’t need to or want to, my game is on average still a good 3 -3.5 hour round which allows me all the time I need to enjoy my game, the course, and its surroundings. Perhaps I’m just lucky living in the UK and have a good selection of fine courses to play.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JWinick,

I'm not sure that I agree with your example.

Slow play isn't confined to golfers who are in doubt about distance.

It's a modus operandi or SOP for those golfers.

I've seen 16 handicaps, members of a course for 40 years, mentally debate how far they are and what club to hit, when they've been in the exact same position hundreds of times over those 40 years.

Putting a range finder in their hands isn't going to speed up their play.

In most cases I like playing against golfers who use range finders to obtain the exact yardage to the pin.  Usually, they ignore the other material factors, focusing on one thing and one thing only, the distance to the pin.

On most courses, if you aim at the center of the green, you're probably better off, tactically and score wise.

Having them Zero in on the pin is usually good for me.

I especially love it when the pin is right behind a hazard.
Most hit to the pin instead of incorporating a margin for error and hitting 5-10 yards beyond the pin.

[C. Squier]

Nobody has ever calculated distance that way on a golf course.  Ever, ever, ever!!

Nobody.  Not a soul. 

They guess the circumference of a circle, and then count from there.  Thus, no trig has ever, is ever or will ever get used on a golf course.

Have I said "ever" enough?   

EVER?  I'll do it on blind shots when I rifle one a fairway over.....but I'll add a disclaimer that I'm a math geek.  All you have to do is know the following Pythagorean Triples and you can get dangerously close within seconds.  

Warning for all single men:  The following will help you maintain your single status indefinitely if your knowledge is made public.

( 3, 4, 5)    ( 5, 12, 13)   ( 7, 24, 25)   ( 8, 15, 17)
( 9, 40, 41)   (11, 60, 61)   (12, 35, 37)   (13, 84, 85)
(16, 63, 65)   (20, 21, 29)   (28, 45, 53)   (33, 56, 65)
(36, 77, 85)   (39, 80, 89)   (48, 55, 73)   (65, 72, 97)

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()